Lechmere was Jack the Ripper

[Fisherman]

Thanks for the link to the East London Advertiser Fisherman. Judging by the varying height of the fence palings, I can see why it ranged from 5'6" to 6'. Still I used it as a measurement to gauge 6' more or less, which is roughly how far away the soles of her boots were away from the wall (taking into consideration the 2' distance from the wall and the length of her body with bent legs). Not groundbreaking but much of her body is going to be beyond the width of that door, possibly reaching beyond the distance of the basement well. That's a lot of body to go unnoticed regardless if he looked under the door or not. I leave it narrowly open that obstacles may have made him oblivious to her dead body but it would be a very particular scenario, like nothing whatsoever caught his peripheral vision nor did he ever glance slightly left.

I think if he had an itch to.look at the steps, then it was because he was doing the natural thing of leaning forward over his knee to look down at his boot.

Yes, indeed - her body will have stretched further down the yard than the doorblade could have, and significantly so.

However, the only thing that means is that the ANGLE of the doorblade will be what determines what can be seen from a position on the steps. And if the angle was anything like I depicted, then he could have glanced to his left as much as he wanted to, and he would still not see the body. Look here again:

https://ibb.co/jnjuV9

Note how the corpse is way lower in the yard than the doorblade, but how that blade prevents any view of it.

As for looking down on your boots, there are some things to keep in mind:

1. Which boot was it? If he was angled to the right and it was his right boot, he would certainly NOT look down the doorblade when observing it.

2. If there was a piece of leather that annoyed him, would he not remove the shoe to take it away? Meaning that he could well have removed it BEFORE sitting down on the steps. It was said that he laced the shoe up afterwards, implying that it was off as he cut.

3. If he did really cut leather from his shoe - or tried and failed to do so, which may also have been the case - then we can bank on him not overlooking the backyard during that process. He said he was there two minutes or three only, and I believe most of that time would have him concentrating on the shoe. Meaning that there would be precious little time left to look for corpses.

[Fisherman]

Once more, what is strange, crammed or unnatural with the position I have given Richardson? Anybody?

https://ibb.co/kQFX2p

[Fisherman]

On self-closing doors, here´s what Colin (Bridewell) said earlier:

"I don't know if the door is the original, but in the photograph (1960's?) it seems to have rising butt hinges. For the benefit of anyone not familiar with them, these hinges cause the door to rise an inch or so from the closed to the open position; they also causes the door to close when released. If the hinges were indeed rising butts, the notion that Richardson sat with his back against it makes a great deal of sense."

From the net:

"Are rising butt hinges self closing?

These hinges have the advantage over ordinary butt hinges in that the door becomes, almost, self-closing. The weight of the door combined with the bevel on the hinged joint causes the door to close by itself, in the majority of cases.

Rising butts won't cause the door to automatically close fully, every time, but people will usually notice that the door is closing behind them, and complete the task themselves. No need to keep shouting “shut that door”.

And two demonstrations of how the mechanism works:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYMSEBY3L5Y

and

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaSCoz3IMio

The designs are slightly different but the mechanism the same. It is very evident that a door mounted on these hinges will not stay open - it will inevitably swing back by virtue of it´s own weight.

So if this was what Richardson spoke of - and every indication is that this was so - then we may rest assured that having the door swing back and rest against your person is something that would happen unless you could secure it in an open position. And Richardson never says anything about having done that, instead he said that the door closed itself.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The door was on hinges that were designed to make it close itself. Richardson is very clear on that point - he did not have to close the door, since it did that by itself.
Ergo, the door was never in a position where it was full up and motionless. If it had been, then Richardson would have had to shut it.
He did not, as he testified about in very certain terms.

The photo you look at may well represent the door having been secured to the far end by means of a latch - when latched, it cannot swing back. Such a latch is useful if you want the door not to close while you travel through it. Imagine, for example, carrying a sofa through a door that will not stay open. It´s a bummer, right? So how is that problem solved? It is solved by adding a latch.

I don´t know if they have them at Ikea, but I do know that they are common.

So let´s summarize!

On the murder morning, Richardson did NOT shut the door, it shut itself. That means that he never had it latched to the far end. and if he did not the hinges would ensure that it did not stay open.

Tell me, Herlock: Do you understand how this works now? You can lead a donkey to water, but...

A transparent manipulation of the known facts to suit your own argument.

There is no evidence that the door in the photographs was secure open by a latch. None.

As I explained, using my experience of using doors (I can’t believe that I’m having to explain this to an adult!) that because the door stayed open on its on (as per the photographs) this in no way conflicts with Richardson’s testimony about the door closing on its own.


This is childishly simple.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well, you even leave the door open, although Richardson said it shut itself.

I can only apologize for not remembering every detail of the case I have read about. Then again, I HAVE read about them. That is what makes me avoid using photos that do not give a true picture of the conditions in 1888, for example.

I don´t expect any- and everybody to keep track on such things, but I always hoped they would understand the error built into not knowing about it. No such luck, though.

No, you use drawings that do that job.

Please stop with the door nonsense Fish. It’s very silly.

[harry]

Fisherman,
Impressive reply,as you do not know either.Which says all about your diagram..
For instance,why take up an unnatural position when the door could have been opened wider.Strange in that it is impossible to estimate how far the door was opened when Richardson stepped through.Cramped in relation to how a door is normally opened by straightening of the hand that pushes it open,resulting most often in the door opening fully.

I doubt even you,strange as you appear,opens a door just wide enough to sidle through,or sits with a door liable to obstruct a full and free movement.

[Sam Flynn]

I doubt even you,strange as you appear,opens a door just wide enough to sidle through,or sits with a door liable to obstruct a full and free movement.

Quite. Then again, perhaps Richardson was practicing his moonwalk.

[Herlock Sholmes]

From where he sat, it would be a logical thing to say that "I could see all over the place". When you sit on the stairs, you would be able to see more than ninety per cent of the yard, and the expression "all over the place" could easily come into play.
If he had been asked "could you really see every square millimeter of it?", he would probably realize that he was wrong.
Expressions like these are very common. They were never meant to be exact representations. All of us know that. (See?)

More nonsense

Richardson said that he actually saw the body in situ later on. Therefore he knew exactly where it lay and exactly how much space it took up and exactly how much of the yard he would have needed to see for the body to have been, at least partially, in his field of vision.

This couldn’t be clearer.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Once more, what is strange, crammed or unnatural with the position I have given Richardson? Anybody?

https://ibb.co/kQFX2p

Not your first drawing Fish as you well know. You changed it when the obvious misrepresentations were pointed out to you

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,
Impressive reply,as you do not know either.Which says all about your diagram..
For instance,why take up an unnatural position when the door could have been opened wider.Strange in that it is impossible to estimate how far the door was opened when Richardson stepped through.Cramped in relation to how a door is normally opened by straightening of the hand that pushes it open,resulting most often in the door opening fully.

I doubt even you,strange as you appear,opens a door just wide enough to sidle through,or sits with a door liable to obstruct a full and free movement.

Harry, you have reached enlightenment - we don´t know how wide the door was opened - and so the rest is useless ballast.

We can go on for ever discussing how wide the door was opened, and it will not result in any certainty at all. Of course, you can suggest that I am saying that Richardson wrigled or squeezed through, but that is nothing but misinformation - there would have been plenty of space for him to pass through even with a modest opening angle, and it also applies that even if he did push the door very much open, he need not have looked down to his left as it swung back.

It is all very easy - much as you can come up with a thousand suggestions about how he MAY have opened the door to the full and looked very intensely into the gap, it may equally be that he did neither.

And that is all it requires for me to have made my point.

[Fisherman]

Not your first drawing Fish as you well know. You changed it when the obvious misrepresentations were pointed out to you

I didn´t change Richardsons position, and that is what the question was about: What is it you perceive as unnatural or crammed with that position?

Can you answer that, please?

[Herlock Sholmes]

On self-closing doors, here´s what Colin (Bridewell) said earlier:

"I don't know if the door is the original, but in the photograph (1960's?) it seems to have rising butt hinges. For the benefit of anyone not familiar with them, these hinges cause the door to rise an inch or so from the closed to the open position; they also causes the door to close when released. If the hinges were indeed rising butts, the notion that Richardson sat with his back against it makes a great deal of sense."

From the net:

"Are rising butt hinges self closing?

These hinges have the advantage over ordinary butt hinges in that the door becomes, almost, self-closing. The weight of the door combined with the bevel on the hinged joint causes the door to close by itself, in the majority of cases.

Rising butts won't cause the door to automatically close fully, every time, but people will usually notice that the door is closing behind them, and complete the task themselves. No need to keep shouting “shut that door”.

And two demonstrations of how the mechanism works:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYMSEBY3L5Y

and

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaSCoz3IMio

The designs are slightly different but the mechanism the same. It is very evident that a door mounted on these hinges will not stay open - it will inevitably swing back by virtue of it´s own weight.

So if this was what Richardson spoke of - and every indication is that this was so - then we may rest assured that having the door swing back and rest against your person is something that would happen unless you could secure it in an open position. And Richardson never says anything about having done that, instead he said that the door closed itself.

What?

So what’s being said here is that the hinges on the door in the photographs are unlikely to have allowed thedoors to stay open on their own?

The doors in the photographs?

The ones that are open.

On their own.

Anyone see a problem here

[Herlock Sholmes]

I didn´t change Richardsons position, and that is what the question was about: What is it you perceive as unnatural or crammed with that position?

Can you answer that, please?

You really do twist everything Fish

You know very well that I was talking about the position of the corpse!

[Fisherman]

More nonsense

Richardson said that he actually saw the body in situ later on. Therefore he knew exactly where it lay and exactly how much space it took up and exactly how much of the yard he would have needed to see for the body to have been, at least partially, in his field of vision.

This couldn’t be clearer.

No, Herlock, you try to make it out as if it was crystal clear, and that is Richardson could not have been mislead by the same thing that mislead you - the perception that it would be hard to miss the body.

It seems so on forst gaze, but it all changes when the doorblade is in place.

If we were to believe that every witness was exactly correct in everything they said, we will have a lot of trouble with - for example - making Cadosch and long work.

People exaggerate, they misunderstand (just look at you!) and they are somethimes unwilling to admit to perhaps having been wrong.

Surely, you are familiar with those mechanisms? Or do you genuinely believe that every witness that says "this was so" is on the money? Shall we decide that the rag was not there at Longs first round - he said very clearly that it wasn´t.

When you try to pass things off as absoilute truth, you will be taken to taks afterwards and directed to live with your way of judging. What goes in one case must go in the next too.

The nonsense must stop now, people are somethins wrong. And Richardson may not even have been on the steps - he clearly told Chandler that he was not.

But that MUST be wrong? Or? How flexible is your reasoning on that count? If Chandler said so, then surely it must be true? If we believe Richardson, then we believe Chandler. Or?

[Fisherman]

You really do twist everything Fish

You know very well that I was talking about the position of the corpse!

Perhaps so, but then you failed to read my question: What is wrong with Richardsons position?

Answer that instead, please. Instead of answering what was not asked about, please.